Of course most of us want fair Industrial relations in Australia. The larger question is to do with how our economy can operate within the globalized world economy, where workers are already savagely exploited, and still maintain the levels of prosperity in Australia which we have at present, which enable our material and human standard of living to be maintained. How can we compete when Chinese workers are paid patheticly low wages and their cheap goods flood the markets of the world?

Economists are not well fitted to explore the human realities of hearts and minds, but it would seem that some kind of change of heart at the controlling levels of the world economy is needed if there is to be a fair distribution of the financial outcomes of a fully globalized economy - for Chinese as well as Australians. Multi-million dollar pay and indeed payouts at the top end and depressed worker wages are inconsistent with a decent regard for fellow human beings, but how can the rich be induced to recognise that there are worthwhile alternatives to wealth?

One partial solution might be the abandonment of the current fawning adulation and media induced hero-worship of the mega-rich. Let the wealthy have prestige, admiration and respect in so far as they practice their philanthropy; let them be conspicuously scorned as the heartless philistines they are if they persist in the mindless parading of their unconscionable ill-gotten affluence. This kind of response is within the power of ordinary people who can reject the manipulations of the media of mass misunderstanding.

Does it have to come to the point of the first and famous French Revolution before privilege for the wealthy and pain for the poor manifests in violent social upheaval that throws doubt upon whether huge social inequality is worth it for anybody. The current situation in France suggests that other societies are madly headed in the same direction. Do we have to be so stupid?

IF the new IR changes survive the proposed High Court challenge intact (which I seriously doubt) what will be the result when Labour gains power next?

Will the ALP Federal Parliament override State Parliament's views of the appropriate wages?

This would result in wage rises / price rises / etc.

This is inevitable (indeed by the time labour gets re-elected the disparity between minimum wage employees and the remainder of the country may require drastic action).

Irrespective therefore of the short-term benefit to business, the long term prospects for business, efficiency and productivity (& consequently economic growth) would be extremely grim.

In this circumstance, we WILL indeed be in the position that we have another recession, tis time however, one that Australia never needed to have. The long term consequences of this absurd gutting of the Federal division of power will be to the detriment of all Australian's, and ultimate responsibility for it must rest with the Conservatives.

As will be shown by tonight's national news, employees have come out on mass to protest the IR changes, it would be a very brave Senate that would approve them now, with the full knowledge, that if they do, it will certainlt result in the removal of the Howard Government or Costello/Turnbull Government at the next election. People obviously saw through the $55 million taxpayer funded media campaign, telling us how much better off we would be with less pay, and fewer conditions, the booklet following the TV add's will only add insult to injury, and ensure the issue gains further opposition.

"In Australia, a worker’s right to a living wage was declared in the Harvester Judgement handed down by Justice Higgins in 1907. In it, Justice Higgins determined the minimum weekly wage required to support a family of five by establishing the cost of living, i.e. the amount an average worker paid for food, shelter and clothing. The agreed upon sum of two pounds two shillings per week would enable a family, on a single income, to live in “frugal comfort”."

It's a pity we don't live in the early 20th century anymore, because the Harvester Judgement may have some relevance to the here and now.

Australian society has changed plenty since these days Tim. Traditional families with three kids are by no means very common in 2005. Families are more likely to have just two kids and a growing number either have no kids or the absence of one of the parents. Not to mention the growth in singles, especially all the women in the workforce who delay child rearing until their biological clock is ready to explode.

People should be free to work for whatever they think they are worth. If they don not think they can survive on the minimum wage, they either change their spending habits or they get a job where their labour is valued more.

Why should someone in Goulburn get paid same amount as someone in Sydney simply because they do the same job. It fails to recognise the cost of living in regional towns and actually works to keep people unemployed in regional areas.

After James McConvill's horrible piece about Paul Keating a coupla weeks ago, I found myself agreeing with hispiece in The Oz today about labour reform. Have a read, it actually injects some common sense to the argument.

Businesses are not there to provide welfare, they will pay workers what they are worth.
A business which shortchanges its workers will end with the same fate as say a restaurant which skimps on good quality ingredients.
You get what you pay for whether that be raw materials, transport or labour.

t.u.s

It is not a matter of choosing between society or economy. A flexible labour force is necessary if the Australian economy is to flourish.

Without a minimum wage and unfair dismissal laws, businesses can employ more people and/or be more competitive internationally.

Wage is a price and therefore it should be determine completely by market forces. If in an industry, wages are too low, then it is a signal to people in the industry that there are better opportunities elsewhere and that they should look for work in the other industries.

So it is not clear that the changes will create a class of working poor.

What might happen is industries that are labour intensive will diminish and other industries, particular industries that Australia has a comparative advantage in, or in other words, industries that countries with cheap labour don't have a comparative advantage in, will flourish.

SL, so the 40 thousand people that marched in Brisbane today know nothing, - have no clear understanding of how the new IR laws will effect them and their families?

They all looked like reasonably intelligent people to me.

The people I marched with included industrial lawyers and economists from universities across Brisbane.

t.u.s. comments : People should be free to work for whatever they think they are worth. If they don not think they can survive on the minimum wage, they either change their spending habits or they get a job where their labour is valued more.

You have mentioned this before in other posts, that people on minimum wages should be more cautious in their spending habits. I hear a sneer in the comments,and find them reprehensible. People on minimum wages already watch their spending. There is often little left over after paying for food, clothing, electricity,and other necesseties of life. Many low income earners, may dream of a better life,(and a plasma TV as previously mentioned) but a dream is all they can afford.
There are not the jobs out there to keep swapping and changing, no matter the statistics - (remember even working 2 hours a week shows up in statistics as being employed. The worker is not expecting to be molly coddled by their employer, they expect a fair days pay for a fair days work. As to a worker finding work to suit 'his worth' many workers are highly experienced in the workplace, but if all that is out there are jobs with minimum wages and poor conditions, many will have to accept whatever position they can get. If their labour is not 'valued' by many employers, they would be hard pressed to fulfill that scenario.

Will you sit their in your ivory tower and honestly look at families being evicted, children without warm clothing and decent nourishment, and seriously comment that they need to change their spending habits? We are talking basic wages and below basic living standards as a result. We are talking removal of penalty rates and overtime, often the fine line between basic comfort and abject poverty. Will you have a kind thought for the person serving you in the supermarket, that they may have been standing there for hours, and may not get any break in a 9 hour shift (casual employee) as their employer denied 'breaks' in their contracts?

Which planet are you transmitting from,SL ?

personally I think t.u.s. has a point, I think I'm worth $59 MILLION PER ANNUM. I will go and choose which job, I consider worthy of my talents, and if things don't work out, I will simply find another job, with the same remuneration, no problem, we don't need a minimum wage, as the same pay as the Leightons Holdings C.E.O. sounds ok to me, I will settle for that, and any of you greedy people who want more, should be ashamed of yourselves. If I can survive on this, I, for the life of me, can't see why the rest of you can't. Anyone would think that a $59 million remuneration, adds to overheads? When we know quite well it is only the minimum wage that does that.

Is no one going to respond to my original post? The issue beyond all this left and right exchange is the fundamental one, of how can Australia continue in a globalized world where major corporations have chosen and will continue to choose to operate in countries where labour is cheap, those of Asia particularly. Genuine sympathy for Australian workers has to go beyond demands that they get a fair go in the existing economic structures within Australia. The question of how Australia is to maintain its flourishing economy is too important to be ignored. It demands consideration of the fundamental motivation of those who have economic power. Why would they be considerate of the circumstances of Australian workers when there are Chinese, Bangladeshis and so on who will do the same work for very much less pay?
Australians - and the West generally might even need to care about the wage rates of workers in other countries to protect their own wages.

Sorry Tinkerbell - but getting by on a low wage is possible. My wife and I did so when she was not working and my wage was a little over $22,000 (less than 12 bucks an hour). We also had a young child and another one on the way, were renting a small unit and paying off a crappy old commodore. It can be done and there is nothing sneering about it.

Getting by in life is not about thinking happy thoughts and being able to fly Tink, it often takes a bit of sacrifice and a bit of hard work.

As for you Shocka, if someone thinks you have the necessary skills to increase a businesses profits by more than $59 million, they will employ you. If they think you are worth half that, they will too.

I definitely was scratching my head last night and this morning when none of the news reports said more than 19.5 million Australians didn't protest yesterday. although there were reports that 95 per cent of businesses were not affected one iota by the strike.

That is, most people don't give a rats, because they know nothing will change or they will be better off.

Of course, it is about time some individuality was brought into the workplace.

I didn't need a union official to negotiate my house loan and I didn't need one to propose to the missus when I decided she was the one. Both decisions are far more important on the road of life yet people make them every day without the need for third party interference.

t.u.s.

Tim wrote "The other critical concern is what will happen to the more than a million unemployed and underemployed Australians ..."

I did casual building and demolition work when I came to Australia, and was on the dole for four months in a building downturn. I then took a steady job which paid about the same as my unemployment benefit (couple with two young kids), for two reasons. First, I considered that welfare was a back-up, it was my responsibility to support my family if possible. Second, I knew that the best position from which to get a better job is that of employment, not unemployment. Many of the skills needed to maintain regular employment can only be obtained or demonstrated in employment. To the extent that proposed changes help unemployed people to get work (and I think they will), even at below the present minimum wage, that is the best option for their future well-being. (Re mention of skilling the unskilled, such programs generally have very poor outcomes. The best time for interventions for those in disadvantaged/dysfunctional families - the future unemployed - is early childhood.)

And we're not talking about competing with Bangladeshi wages - Australia's minimum wage as a percentage of average wages is by far the highest in the industrialised countries. Wages are ultimately determined by productivity, and low-wage countries have low productivity - our wages reflect higher productivity, and labour market changes in recent years and proposed aim at increasing productivity.

As for ALP rollbacks, I think that the IR changes will be a non-issue long before the next election. By the time the ALP is a contender - ? the 2010 election - rollback will be way off the agenda.

And, Aaron, the "recession-we-had-to-have" was actually the Keating-induced recession, the economy now is relatively recession-proof because of the increased flexibility from the Hawke-begun microeconomic reform process, including labour market reforms.

I am sorry Faustino,

I actually believe that the recession we had to have was a John Howard (Treasurer - Fraser Parliament) inspired and caused issue. Paul keating did instigate the micro-reforms under Bob Hawke, however only in response to the problems inherited from the inflationary pressures caused by Mr Howards mismanagement of treasury during the late 1970's.

So you look forward to a Australian Fair Pay Commission, stacked with former ACTU (etc.) leaders? I presume from your statement that our 'recession proof' economy could deal effectively with their version of how wages should be increased & when (believe me, from personal experience I am well aware of the ALP's capacity for stacking).

Please do not mistake my prsonal perspective on these reforms, however I believe that it is instructive for some of the more intransigent proponents of these changes to contemplate their capacity to cause long-term harm. i personally think that we are due for massive 'inflation' (actually inflatiion really is the increase in cash or substitutes - see record levels of personal indebtedness - credit is a cash substitute, therefore what is commonly referred to as inflation is really the symptom of what has already occurred).

Therefore to suggest that our economy is inflation proof - is a bizarre misstatement of economic reality - we will experience inflation, with the corresponding rise in interest rates - insolvency rates will increase, and property prices fall through fire sales. THIS IS A SYMPTOM OF THE INCREASE IN CASH SUBSTITUTES, AND CANNOT BE AVOIDED, merely delayed.

In response to Lyall and others, it seems to me that some of us live in a different mental galaxy to a lot of people. Globalisation is having the effect of equalising living standards around the world. This is something that I would have thought many people on the left would applaud. However what they don't seem able to realise is that equalisation means that the living standard here must be lowered towards that pertaining in China and Bangladesh, etc. Most people on the left seem to harbour the fanciful idea that equality can be achieved by raising the living standard in these countries up to near the Australian level. This is physically impossible, as the resources, particularly oil, simply do not exist to support this. Most of the increase in the oil price this year has been caused by burgeoning Chinese demand, and it won't be long before they run into a brick wall of resource limitations. Maintaining minimum wages here at the current level will simply result in more unemployment, as employers remain unable to afford to employ people at that wage. Meanwhile we continue to run a balance of payments deficit of 7% of GDP, which means that our foreign debt continues to soar. When this is eventually called in, we will really be for it. Remember that whatever else governments can do, they can't print foreign exchange.

Thanks for taking up the important point pierdsus that globalisation may well bring living standards down in Australia to enable competition with cheaper labour elsewhere. Even if labour costs in other countries rise, to the benefit of workers there, they are coming from a very low base and would have to come a very long way up to meet even lowered Australian labour costs.
Surely one of the first steps towards resolution of the problem is to lower the wages of those who can very well afford it, such as those on $60,000 A WEEK. Will the proposed Fair Pay commision do anything about the obscene levels of pay at the top end before considering reductions at the bottom end? It is Gilbertian at least to take from those who can least afford to lose anything rather than the abundantly rich.
What of social costs when mass deprivation leads to crime and social upheaval? We are all children of culture and most of the ills of the world can be associated with negative acculturation and poverty. As Martin Luther King said, "The lynch mob is never led by a happy man."
Getting the barons of industry to believe that they can get by on a mere $100,000 or so a year is a large part of the problem, but with suitable childhood conditioning and the endorsement and support of a society that respects merit rather than money, they can rejoice in a sense of self worth that is achieved without conspicuous consumption to the detriment of others.

‘… designed to protect individuals with little or no bargaining power. As the AIRC explained … “Bargaining is not a practical possibility for employees who have no bargaining power”.’

This repeated reference to some abstract mythical ‘bargaining power’ really gets me. What on earth does in mean??
If we’re talking about a job seeker’s / job offeror’s market like we talk about a buyers or sellers market then I can understand that. Sometimes there will be many applicants for one job and thus the market price of the job’s salary will be low, and alternately sometimes certain tradespeople will be in short supply and thus the salary market price will be high.

However I suspect this ‘bargaining power’ concept is different. Apparently the story goes:
When you have the humble cloth capped worker sitting alone in his overalls in the plush oak-panelled boardroom across the table from the cigar-chomping corpulent corporate leader together with his legions of industrial lawyers and negotiators, somehow our humble Alf from the assembly line doesn’t possess this magical glowing power (May the Force be with you) that is being used against him from across the table.
But what is this force?
Unless Alf is a complete numbskull, all he has to do before the meeting is check out the help wanted ads and/or employment agencies, confer with his workmates, and otherwise suss out the employment situation for his trade or any other trade he might be prepared to venture into. From all of this he will decide his bottom line.

There is no complex boardroom negotiation. If the boss says they don’t do overtime then Alf gets out his calculator and adjusts his bottom line or declares no weekend work.

Most employment contracts for the lower skilled are not for a fixed term and those that are would probably have a cooling off period anyway, so if per chance Alf gets down to the pub after signing and is told by his mates that he got screwed, he simply goes back next day to get paid more or to resign.

The lefties will have had a big surprise if they read James McConvill's article in yesterday's "The Australian".

t.u.s You are an interesting character, in your first post you say the employee should work for what they think they are worth, and in the second post, it changes to what the employer thinks the employee is worth? Is this double-dutch for, the employer will pay the employee whatever he feels like paying? It never ceases to amaze me how the lousy minimum wage is such a threat to overheads, however at the same time C.E.O's millions are not, sheer hypocrisy. Don't you think ordinary employees can see this, if you don't you are wrong, as usual. The reason only half a million people protested, on the 15th, is that others in the workforce may be subservient to the employer, however it was the largest protest in Australia's industrial history, and this does not mean that the employees that were unable to attend were not concerned with the potential loss of pay, conditions, and subsequent living standards. They may not have been able to join us in protest, but be in no doubt they will join us in the ballot box in 2007, so don't get too comfortable in the ivory tower, as you may find your advantage is a very short lived one, and the exorbident C.E.O salaries may be reigned in after the next election to return Australia to a fair and just society.

Shonga you obviously have no idea about economics. The worker and employer will work out what the price of labour will be.
If an employer is willing to pay $10 an hour and no-one is willing to accept that - they will have no employees. Conversely, if an employee thinks they should earn $20 but no employer will pay them that much, they will not have a job.
Then along comes supply and demand and the two parties may settle on say $15 an hour. Boss has worker and worker has job. Win-win. it is called a market - M.A.R.K.E.T.
It is the same thing which applies to the CEOs you so despise. If a company wants the best, they have to offer good wages - it may be over the top but if you pay them only $100,000 they would quickly find a job with another company or in another country. And the company loses out.
The report in Fin Review the other day on executive salaries showed those on the biggest packages generally had lifted the revenues of the business. of course there are exceptions, but it is still a market. If you don't like it - transfer to a superannuation company which only invests in companies which pay peanuts to executives (and enjoy a poor retirement ;0)

As for me in my ivory tower - not likely. A single level, former housing commission dwelling in the suburbs is my usual residence. You know, the kind of place you can chat over the back fence to a neighbour about how lucky we are (not your vitriolic jealousy in another thread where you wish a businessman went bankrupt to teach him a lesson).

Edward Carson - don't say that too loudly - remember the unions believe workers are stupid and can no way make a decision about their lives such as how much money they need (and how much should end up in the pocket of Mr Combet who probably earns more than the PM).

Leigh - The McConvill article was great, as mentioned in another thread.

t.u.s.

There are many problems concerning the future of people and society in a globalised world that is centered around increasing the efficiency of resource distribution.

In relation to Economics one can take the opinion that more resources for everyone is advantageous. However, that is provided that the market for world resources functions in a way that maximises the efficiency of these resources and that they are free from exploitation. This means that we have to rely on the honesty, compassion, and integrity of organisational owners and the government.

For some people in undeveloped countries and not so fortunate circumstances this optimistic and positive perception is under strain. Would you believe that in some underdeveloped countries there are perpetual cycles of child labour that communities are unable to break.

One may take the opinion that globalised trade benefits these communities where child labour practices flourish and that it enables them to develop into a fairer society. However, it is evident that the competition for global labour across underdeveloped nations (such as India, China, Africa and others) actually fuels the demand for cheaper exploitative labour and perpetuates an endless cycle of poverty lacking basic human rights that people in developed countries cherish.

I concede that industrial relation reform is unavoidable if Australian organisations are to survive in the global economy. However, I can not see how we can compete against underdeveloped countries that have economies based on exploitative labour practices and allow deplorable human right violations to continue (sale and trafficking of children, drug trafficking or illegal activities, slavery, forced labour, forced recruitment in armed conflict, prostitution, debt bondage).

I believe the real problem lies in mandating higher standards for people in poorer communities and to ensure that child labour is stamped out. Only after fairer conditions exist in the poorest communities of the world will we be able to realise an optimistic view of the future labour conditions in developed countries such as Australia.

Insight into how we can improve these conditions for poor people can be gained from the International Labour Organisation’s website http://www.ilo.org/.

What distresses me most about the current IR debate are the statements that Australia has historically low levels of unemployment and Australia's unemployment is lower than Germanys. Well folks this is a lie. In Australia you are deemed to be "employed if you have an hour of paid or unpaid work in the survey period". In Germany you are unemployed if you have less than 15 hours paid work a week.

In Germany I would be classed as unemployed, in Australia I am classed as employed because I average one day's work a fortnight. At the national day of protest I was told its quite common for people to apply for jobs, be told they are hired, then they have to wait around for a roster.

Oh, how much notice do I get of a shift, just enough time to drop every thing and drive to work so I keep my tools and work clothes in my car. Not a good reward for a skilled worker doing a skilled job for which I require qualifications and police checks.

The IR reforms will increase the stampede to casualise work and reduce living standards for Australian workers.

It is very soul destroying for people who do not work, your self esteem is lowered, if you are waiting for a roster you actually can't plan anything and you are socially isolated because its cheaper to stay home than it is to go to the movies, shopping centre or through museums.

Why is it important to fire 8,000 effective full time Telstra employees, probably 14,000 jobs and send the work to India. The Telstra employees who will be retrenched are skilled trained workers who have survived previous downsizing campaigns - so they are unlikely to be "dead wood".

I hate the proposed IR changes, I hate what they are destined to do to the social fabric of our country, and most of all I hate John Howard. He must have been the one they all bullied at school, because he lacked team spirit, always keeping aloof, and talking down to everyone in a pathetic, whining voice that made them beat him up even more. The IR law changes will hurt everyone, and that's fine. We live in a democracy, ruled by majority decision. How many of those carrying the Southern Cross flags and calling for national strike action voted conservative at the last and previous federal elections? Many more than you would imagine. Enough to deliver government to that myopic, diminutive imbicile and his nose-to-bum followers. The born-again Treasurer, and the cross-dresser Foreign Minister. A hefty number of card-carrying unionists voted for them, because of the mere suggestion that a Labor government might raise interest rates. This despite the conservatives' political philosophy, despite the lies they have told us in the past, and the threats they posed. Now they intend to implement those threats, and I say yes! shove them in and make them hurt, because that's the only way the greedy, self-interested, cowardly bastards hiding amongst us in the protest marches will ever learn. We all have to suffer before the opportunists among us realise that the coalition government has no interest in us, or our future well-being. They are lackeys of overseas interests, big business, oil magnates. We have the ability to become self-sufficient in energy resources, but our economy remains tied to the price of a barrell of oil in Texas. We'll never break free while the status quo remains, but first we have to suffer so some of us can learn. Enough time before the next election for the lesson to sink in. Time enough also, I hope, for the ALP to realise Julia Gillard is the engine, while Kim Beazley is the anchor. The message is, 'stop trying to kick-start the anchor, dummies.'

Prior to Thatcherism in England in the 1980s, England's GDP was said to on path to becoming equal to that of Albania. At one time, England even had to borrow substantial amounts of money from Saudi Arabia to meet its foreign debt obligations. With the changes she put in place including the establishment of a flexible labour force with a low minimum wage and low taxes, England is now I think the second richest country in Europe.

t.u.s Well you certainly are an interesting character, I respect your right to your opinion, and wish I could have as much faith in M-A-R-K-E-T F-O-R-C-E-S as you do, I find it amusing that your ivory tower is a housing commission home, which means to me, that I am far better off than you are, yet here you are defending the millionaires, a catergory of person, to wich you obviouly don't belong, and probably never will. I have been a toiler all my life, and have saved for the things I have, a foriegn concept to many, as shown by our massive overseas debt, people can no longer earn enough in wages to save, but as you say that's the M-A-R-K-E-T, so as our Nation slowly sinks into international debt, and the ship goes down, we will find you proudly at the helm, playing the "last post" and thumpeting those great "market forces" that led us down this path, I wish you well in your obvious ignorance.I am so glad you are well versed in economic matters, you are our once great nation's future....frightening....

SL your assertions that GDP in the UK turned around under Margaret Thatcher are not quite correct. Thatcher was prime minister from 1979 until 1990 and for the first 5 years of her prime ministership the UK GDP per capita dropped, as expressed in 2002 values.

Anecdotally I believe that the Home Counties are booming and the rest of Britain is a basket case with exceedingly high levels of unemployment and low house prices. [The Home Counties are those counties in south east England that surround London and are an easy commute from the capital]

So if we translate the British experience to Australia we can expect living standards to drop for 5 years, productivity of our remaining manufacturing to increase, Sydney to boom and house prices in the rest of Australia to fall as the rest of Australia becomes a depressed economy.

Surely, we can have a better vision for Australia where the wealth is more equitably distributed and all Australians have a bright future not just that tiny proportion of high flying graduates required for the international workforce. I ask myself what is wrong with following the United States lead and instigating tariffs to protect our manufactured goods and farm produce

Shonga/tus,

Please peruse this article regarding the importance of restraining otherwise unbridled market forces;l

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/2003/7.html

John Gava makes some very important points (and a very convincing argument), demonstrating the dangers of both unrestrained capitalism, and of politico/social reasoning in our High Court.

In this era of governments removing any / all restrictions upon multi-national corporations, obviously it is time to consider exactly what the frantic drive to increase the bottom line (ostensibly for the shareholder), and the resultant cost-cutting (lay offs/ wage reductions) have on society.

Personally, I find it intriguing that in this current era, with the news (and indeed this forum) concerned predominantly with the affect of multi-national corporations and multi-national terrorism, Australia makes no concerted attempt to get into step with international law. Perhaps a unified, worldwide approach to these worldwide problems could pay dividends?

Of course, the average citizen cannot provide some of our politicians with the campaign handouts they require, or indeed the incentives, nor allow them to live in the style which they ever so quickly become accustomed to. Perhaps this may explain the reticence of some of our politicians to reign in the multi-nationals, may it also explain why multi-million dollar fraud cases inevitably result in much lower penalties than property crimes of much lesser value?

Who's sneering now Shonga - "I am heaps better off than you becaue you live in a housing commission house".
Actually, if you read what I wrote, I said it was a former housing commission house which was renovated very well by the previous owner. The neighbours are all good people and they don't judge people about where they live like your snooty dismissal of my address.
Our international debt at least is private debt - not like the previous government which owed billions.
As for me, my only debt is my house loan - I own my car, don't spend on credit cards and have no personal loans. But you'd know of course and then whinge about it to boot.
Many people do earn enough to save, they choose to spend instead. There is also a growing army of small business owners who are investing in new ventures, investing in people and saving for their future.
Of course, the new IR changes are not unbridled capitalism - there is minimum wage (the second highest compared to average wages in the developed world) and minimum conditions which must be met, plus many other laws related to safety and superannuation which protect workers financially and physically. Not to mention a welfare system which provides a safety net.
And Shonga - I would rather have people like me who advocate people taking individual responsibility for their actions, rather than government or unions making decisions for me. Your idiotic socialist ships have tended to sink a lot faster than the good ship Australia.

t.u.s

'Oughts' and 'shoulds' will never bring about change in the attitudes of the industrial barons of capitalism, so it is a waste of time talking about what 'should' be done. Answers to the inequality problem lie in understanding the personal identity of those who are making the sytem what it is. When they are persuaded that thier identity is better served by working in the public interest they will act more in accord with the welfare of owrkers. This is a huge task requiring a pardigm shift in thinking and one which calls for radical re-appraisal of priorities. Where then are the thinkers and leaders in the realm of ethics and what are they saying that will lead society in this direction?

t.u.s. You constantly equate the IR reforms and the lowering of wages, penalty rates etc with people not saving their money and over spending. This is not about what they DO with their income, it is about making that income stretch to pay for basic necesseties. You mentioned you have survived on small income, many of us have and still do, which brings the question, why are you harping back to this all the time? This reaction to these reforms is not about workers wanting anyone to wipe their noses, it is about a fair pay for a fair days work, and to have solid protections in place for that to occur. The workers of this country are not upset that their spending money will disappear, they are fighting for the retention of real wages so they can provide for their families. Many workers are not earning high wages, and still struggle and you once did.
May I also ask when you actually earned $12.00 an hour? Was it when the rest of us were also earning that wage, or when the average worker was earning less?
I applaud your frugal way of living, as many of us know, once we have gone without, we are all the more cautious in our spending. Having said that, I do not begrudge anyone earning enough to occasionaly have a holiday or to afford to pay for their child to go on school excursions, sports fees etc which is what the 'left overs' from their income, are often used for.
The worker is human, not a robot. There are only so many hours in a day, and to not have a happy home life due to working double the hours to provide the basics, is not something I would like to see happen in Australia. I saw it in the USA and witnessed first hand, the exhaustion and loss of basic day to day balance due to many working two to three jobs. This is what will happen with the proposed IR reforms.

t.u.s=t.b.t I realise that your house was a housing commission home, I have no debt, which isn't too bad for someone who obviously knows nothing about the economy. I dont even have a mortgage, or in your academic professional economist speak {house loan} yes you are the economic expert, who cannot see the interaction between foriegn debt and interest rates, and wage rates? David Boaz has similar arguements to you, however I can respect his point of view, because he has an underlying compassion for his fellow man, which is lacking in you. Are you aware that Sweeden had a democratic-socialist government for decades and during that time maintained a flourihing economy, the only difference to Australia, was it was a much fairer economy for all. What really amuses me about you is you are on the "right" of politics, and you think you are right in everything, which of course is not the case. Your side does not have a monopoly on correctness, and neither does mine. You give me the impression that you have a giant sized inferiority complex, and you need to be an employer to feel important more than any other reason. As for the Unions, very few employee's are aware of their rights, which is why a Union is critical, to correct unscrupulous employers, on behalf of the employee to prevent exploitation. You really have no idea about this subject, only a typical Liberal Party philosophy, without knowledge to back up your arguements, as you have not been able to refute even one of my earlier points, e.g. C.E.O's 1970 earned 4 times the average weekly wage, which has now risen to more than 40 times that wage, I can tell you what your answer will be, M-A-R-K-E-T- F-O-R-C-E-S that is what the Liberal Party say, instead of providing a reasonable explanation, as there isn't one, clowns like you should remain as employees, and not force your petty predudices on to good people, who are merely trying to make a living for themselves and their family.

Yes, let's have market forces rule the workplace. Unlimited hours, child labour, unregulated use of all forms of asbestos, white phosphorous, no noise levels, questioning management in any way as a ground for summary dismissal, trade off conditions for pay and an unqualified right of the employer to dock your wages for alleged unsatisfactory work. Let's scrap all the regulatory reforms of the last 150 years. Why not reinstate slavery? Then you can have a real market where you can sell yourself as a chattel. Human dignity is at stake here. Don't be deluded.
It is fair to characterise the debate over workplace reforms as economy or society, provided society includes dignity, autonomy and self-fulfilment. But it runs deeper than that. It is a drastic shift in the balance of workplace power, taking what little a subordinate group (employees) have and conferring it on employers. Bargaining rights are being emasculated. The dominant model of employment under the new laws, AWA"s, is one of "Divide (the workforce) and conquer". What is Australian about that? And the more collective input there is into workplace regulation, the less it is favoured. Awards will wither on the vine. Enterprise bargaining is second-best to individual contracts. I believe we should bring back the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, a strong Industrial Relations Umpire with power over fair pay and targeted sanctions against unlawful industrial action. One of the Government's objectives (probably Howard's main one)is to delegitimise unionism. Let's face down "Divide and Conquer": UNITED WE STAND!!

Whoa - I am the target of a bit of hatred today.

Tink - I was earning $12 an hour less than four years ago, so wages haven't changed a great deal since then, although I have been able to do a lot better for myself.

Like I said before - there are plenty of protections available for people both within and beyond the IR legislation. There is protection of 38 hour week, maternity leave, annual leave, parental leave. plus there is a protection of the minimum wage.
There is also protection for people on collective agreements for people who want to stay on them.

Outside this, their is super, anti-discrimination laws, unlawful dismissal, OHS plus family tax benefit for families to boost income.

IR should not be about welfare - the welfare system is for that.

I have no problem with reducing allowable matters in award. Why should there be conditions for not fondling sheep or using certain sized painbrushes, like there are in some awards. Still though - unless a condition is specifically negotiated away, the award will remain the default.
Please read the legislation rather than rely on ACTU ads.

Now to Shocka
You obviously do not know what you are on about.
Iam not an employer - I am a journalist and have made this clear in many of my posts. i was a member of the MEAA until I realised it helped reward mediocrity and it punished innovation.

And i don't give a sh*t if you don't think I have compassion for people. The people in my community who I help through my volunteer work, not to mention my kids, welcome my positive attitude and guidance.
I imagine it is you who has a massive, bitter chip on their shoulder, you are jealous of people who do well and vindictive of people who are successful through hard work and a bit of luck.

Have a good weekend mulling over your hatred of success. meanwhile i'll be hosting a charity function, trying to do my bit for the community.

Happy seething

t.u.s

The I R reforms are nothing to fear or create a commotion about, except if you are a Looter, in perspective: You can see by some commentary that the Socialist Ideologue has a good hold, and is quite unlikely to make impressionable impact on many.
If you are good at what you do, and are professional in any task, then you will probably get a pay rise, if you are a total dead weight and a WOFTAM, then Socialism is your poison. The basic principles of Economics and commercial gains are at loggerheads with such diatribe as the left would have you believe, for if it is they, then Gulags make a come back.
You owe it to yourselves to succeed, not depend on others and apply the Agitprop or affirmative action for the hopelessly naïve and become a Socialist fellow Looter that steal others product for them selves, “ELITES” as these Looters are of an Intellectual capacity! Is in fact a Psychological disorder.
So do the right think and get on with it.Support your Employer,Governments and assosiates are the enemy of productivity and advancement.
Do people realize the Socialist taxation on Business and Wages? Be grateful there are some employers that still go in to bat for everyone, even when the odds are against him or her . That is the price of Looters demands, No PRODUCT: Just take.

t.u.s. No hatred was sent out to you by my posting. I was refuting and questioning your comments. If you did indeed earn that amount of money less that four years ago, then surely you can understand anyone fearful of losing income so they will be earning less than that amount? Food costs have risen, everything has risen in that time so $1 now buys less than it did four years ago. This is not about welfare, this is about real wages and real terms. Welfare is not mentioned in these posts about workers, and what workers are about to lose. The protections you mention are not set in stone, and an employer can certainly put pressure on an employee to sign away most of the conditions you mentioned. How many people on a low income could afford a legal battle even with the amount offered by the Government toward their legal costs. With no Arbitration commission and no Umpire so to speak, the worker is without any legs. How many workers will be able to pay current average rentals on a take home pay of about $380 per week? Not everyone can find cheap rental accomodation. Though we may see a return for room rentals in houses, with a family of five living in one room. With many penalty rates about to fly out the window, it will mean the difference between a glass of milk for the kiddies or go without. If there is only one parent working, with 3 kids, I fail to see how they could feed and clothe the kids, warm the house on cold nights, let alone afford extras such as fresh milk.

There are already people I know whose real wages are going to be less due to the AWA they are being pressured into signing. These people happen to be the main breadwinners, and are fearful if they try and seek other work, they may lose more.

Tink/Aaron, These parasites think that any questioning of their view is hate mail, they don't understand that we can have genuine concerns, and actually express them, they fail to see the reality, that some of us live, whether we work hard or not, some do not get remuneration increases, merely exploitation, as in my experience. These are the very people we protested about, have any noticed their willingness to lower the labour costs, but avoid all questions, relating to their own remuneration? The really sad part is, that some of them have read the legislation, and don't or won't understand it, a frightening prospect for any potential employee, who enters a contract with these clowns, without a union. Aaron, thank you for the web site reference, it was very informative. t.u.s=t.b.t you really have no idea, so I am giving up on you, untill you gain the desired knowledge, which Industrial Layers have made available to all. Thank you all for the interaction, it has been an interesting excercise, I will now move on to another topic, dispite our differences, a very good weekend to all, and thank you for such lively debate.

Howdy all,

for those who advocate a removal (or demeanng) of the Costitutional protection accorded to arbitration etc. (s.51(xxxv)), please read this speech made in 1903. This is the mischeif at which the placitum was aimed, and removal of one sides protection, willinevitably result in its rebirth.

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/Writings/WarOfTheClasses/scab.html

As a matter of fact comrades, this can be improved upon in our age of information overload, in my political incarnation (a member of the ALP & Unions) I sugest the follwing should be adopted as political doctrine;

1. All scabs should be photographed and their photos, identity and address will be available on national database (probably also those of their families).

2. The same will occur to all employers', identified as using anti-worker approaches. Moreover, the identities, photos and addresses of all management should also be included.

3. Any person choosing to work for, or associate with blackbanned employers or scabs, should be (i) labelled a scab; or (ii) blackbanned (if an employer).

NB. These are neither illegal nor inflamatory, moreover they are protected under the aegis of political free speech. The information on the website will be freely available, though the ALP/ACTU will not be responsible for any misuse or unauthorised violence arising from its use.

BACK TO THE BAD OLD DAYS OF YORE

Aaron, what an excellent suggestion, we could then boycott these employers products and services, the ultimate consumer protection, vote with our feet.

Shonga,

Yes it will work won't it. In addition to which, unlike the Parliament's IR reforms, it will only effect those that seek to harm others. Unfortunately I expect this to be quite a contentious issue, being that the unions / associations of employers feel that they should be allowed to continue using collective bargaining (v Gov't), and using their financial leverage, and legal advisers to abrogate or curtail the rights and freedoms of Australian workers (nb I have read all of the proposed amendments - see my home page / blog). Meanwhile they advocate shrilly, the removal of the right of employees to the protection of collective bargaining and legal representation through unions.

If the current procedure adopted by companies when defending tort claims is adapted to defending unfair dismissal in the courts, $4,000 will be insufficient for most cases to even reach trial. Therefore i hardly think that this is a true safeguard against misuse of socio-economic power by employers', and new ideas and approaches are needed.

That would seem the logical thing for you to do Shonga - turn your back on the argument because you were wrong on so many fronts.

I didn't accuse you of hate mail because I disagreed with you - I accused you of hate mail because you told a successful person you wished they went bankrupt as it would teach them a lesson.

And of course, you railed against me as some sort of beastly employer with a chip on my shoulder who has no compassion for anyone, which as I pointed out is not the case at all.

You keep beating your head against the wall for that exploitative boss of yours during the day and raging against the machine in your spare time. Your prerogative really.

I'll keep setting goals, investing in my future and that of my kids and doing my work for charity and local organisations.

t.u.s.

Actually, I can see an argument to justify at least some of the IR reform and the de-regulation of some parts of the labour market. However, what I cannot understand is why this government appears to be attacking our societies most vulnerable members from every angle.
If they were suggesting an IR package that also included large amounts of money going to early childhood education and care in disadvantaged areas, if they were proposing to give parents in disadvantaged groups huge amounts of help and support, if they were proposing pouring money into disadvantaged public schools and helping kids from poorer backgrounds get through uni, then they would have me. Because then they would be arguing for success through real merit based on a committment to equity, particularly for kids.
Unfortunately, they are doing none of those things, mostly, in fact, the opposite. They persist in giving more to those who already have more and less to those who already have less. A philosophy I simply can't understand.
Market forces ought to prefer a system that encourages real merit based on equality of opportunity, because people getting ahead because they were lucky enough to be born to the right parents, rather than on talent, is actually a tax on all of us. That's why these IR reforms aren't really reforms at all.

To sign a petition urging Barnaby Joyce to cross the floor and vote down the IR legislation, go to http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/campaigns/takeastand/takeastandpetition/cat_process

t.u.s=t.b.t I don't turn my back on anything, but I don't tolerate fools easily. If you are a jurno, and a Tory, that's fine with me. Especially when I see today, that you are sliding into the minority big time, with the ALP 16 points in front of you. The employees of this country are only now beginning to see through your philosophy concerning their wages and conditions, so God willing, these new draconian measures will only last 18 months, and we will return to some sort of fairness, in employment. The reason I have given up argueing with you is, there are none so blind, as those who will not see. Two bob Tory's are a dime a dozen, if you feel good about yourself, in the end, that is all that matters, I have nothing whatsoever against you, merely against your exploitative attitudes to IR.If you consider yourself to be a successful person, I say good on you, so long as you don't take good people down, who are merely trying to make a living to support their families. Have you ever considered that your charity work, need not be done, if employees were paid a decent wage, especially at the lower end of the scale, probably not. I have a mentality of help thy neighbour, and yours seems to be, buggar you Jack, I'm alright. It is merely a difference of opinion, not hate mail, as you dramaticly described it, it is not the politics of envy, it is the politics of fairness, look forward to your future postings.

Go Shonga.

Shonga - It is the politics of envy, not fairness.
What is fair about a person being paid extra because they are a certain age, not a certain ability.
What is fair about a person being paid more because they have been in the job longer, not because they contribute more to the business.
What is fair about an employer being forced to pay workers for 38 hours when they only work 35 hours.
What is fair about a small business paying out $1500 to someone caught with their hand in the till because it is cheaper than being dragged through the unfair dismissal process.
What is fair about a uni student, who can only work weekends, being denied a job because some bureaucrat says she cannot work unless she gets penalities.
What is fair about an employee ditching a job because something better comes along, when an employer cannot fire someone when a better worker comes along.
What is fair about a union or third party telling a worker and boss what they can and can't have in an agreement.
What is fair about an employer having to pay you an extra 17 per cent when you are on holidays, contributing nothing to business (as an aside, I donate my leave loading to charity because I think it is the stupidest, most selfish idea in the whole award system).
What is fair about you telling a young businessman, who was actually against the IR reforms, that you wanted to teach him a lesson by sending him bankrupt.
Sounds real fair to me.

t.u.s

Part Two

The majority of your posts emit an us versus them mentality which doesn't exist in a vast number of workplaces. You seem jealous of people who have gained success through hard work, because you haven't.
I appreciate we have a difference of opinion on this matter, but casting aspersions on people and assuming things about me which were clearly not true, is not the way to win an argument.

The IR changes aren't perfect, but they are better than the system we have now. I believe if we make these changes, my kids will have a better chance of getting a job in the future. That is why I support them. I am not coming from some toffee nosed Tory background.
I grew up in a poor suburb in a poor town. We hade five kids in the family and mum and dad worked hard to look after us. Money was tight, but we had each other, rather than the latest flash toys or appliances.
My oldest sister left school when unemployment was high and she found a job because she was willing to start at the very bottom. She now runs a cooking consultancy firm in Brisbane.
I had to work sh*t jobs to go through uni because mum and dad couldn't help out too much. But a sh*t job is better than no job and very few young people stay in their first job forever.

Anyway, I'm sure we will battle again at some stage. So long. (exit stage left)

t.u.s.

Usual suspect, these new laws are all about a third party telling an employer and employee what they can and cant have in an agreemant. Have you heard the term 'PROHIBITED MATTERS'? or is your understanding of the subject as shallow as your arguements. That previous comment is not meant as an insult ,its just an observation.

t.u.s=t.b.t, For a jurno, you appear to be fairly thick. I said two post ago, I will not argue with you, I am not jealous, or envyious, or anything of the kind. I could and would respond to your most recent ignorant post, however, unfortunately in this forum, posters are only allowed 350 words and the issues you raised are largely non-existent, except in your own mind, and would need a thousand words of reply, and then, you would still be "too blind to see" So I wish you good luck with your life {you will need it} and I hope for your sake, you are not, and never will be affected by this draconion IR legislation. I will leave you with this thought, not only do I own my own home, 2 vechiles, and live debt free, but I sold my AMP shares for $20.50 each, a few years back, next time you watch the News, check out the price today, I think this is a positive example concerning my {supposed} lack of knowledge on all things economical.

Shonga, you said two posts ago you wouldn’t argue but here we still are – hard not to have the last word isn’t it.

Still though, your arguments have not actually been a rebuttal, just telling me I am a fool or naïve and the things I describe do not exist. It seems you can’t even argue the point with a thick “jurno” who doesn’t own two “vechiles”

And its good to see you got rich off corporate Australia – the same corporate Australia you despise for paying CEOs million of dollars. I suppose its OK, when you make a quid hey.

Hedgehog – I never said the new changes were perfect, but they are better than we have now. I would prefer the third party being a government elected by a majority, than a bunch of union thugs representing less than 15 per cent of the population who have no public accountability.

t.u.s

TUS Oh its the majority now is it? U would support a referendum on the IR changes would you? Who are these thugs you refer to. Greg Combet does not appear to be a thug. Mr Combet consistently delivers factual analysis on the topic, without hype or guilding the lily.If only your contributions were as constuctive.Please advise why u feel it neccesary to ridicule Shongas spelling, i think it adds nothing to the debate.

No Hedgehog, I wouldn't support a referendum because it would be a waste of money (just like the government advertising mind you)and I believe referendum's are only necessary in this day and age when the Government is trying to change the constitution, not utilise it.

Industrial relations change has been well and truly on the agenda of the Government since 1996, it does not need to go to a referndum.

Remember, we just had an election 13 months ago where the Government was returned with an increased majority and control of the Senate.
And yes, on a two-party prefered basis, they were voted in by the majority. They will be judged in two years time again. Very accountable and they act within.

As for Greg Combet, he has his own agenda and is not always speaking factually. You will recall two weeks ago he tried to make a martyr of himself by saying he would go to jail rather than pay a fine for breaking the law. Pity it is a civil matter, not criminal - but anything to stir the masses. What I have said is based in reality and my experience, I have been threatened and I don't like intimidation.

And after being called thick, stupid, naive, spoilt, a fool etc, I just thought I better point out some of Shonga's imperfections to break any delusion about being perfect. Seeing as though Shonga won't debate my points, I stooped to that level and got personal. I apologise for that.

t.u.s.

t.u.s. What happens when people dont pay fines imposed by the courts, civil or criminal? They wind up going to jail. Far from being a martyr,i believe Mr Combet just telling it how it is. He will not pay a $33,000 fine, for asking an employer to agree a fair process for reviewing an alleged unfair termination. Now if the Govt. dinkum, what are they going to do? Must say loved your spin, (civil v criminal)it was identical to the dishonest response from Howard.Was that just coincidence or are you Ian Hanke?

t.u.s=t.b.t It appears it is very difficult not to have the last say.
I am sure you will respond to this post. We do agree finally on one point, I also wish a new party would emerge, however my party would not have the goal to exploit the hard working employees of this country. I have said in previous posts that your ilk, are quite happy to talk about lowering the minimum wage, but the absence of mention of any sacrifice on the part of employers for the cause is obvious. I would very much like for you, if you will, to do me a favour. Could you please read through my posts, and tell me which one, e.g No 7/8 9 or 10, where I say I am rich? I can not find that one, and would appreciate your jounalistic talents to point it out for me, you didn't chance a guess at an explanation as to how "someone who obviously knows nothing about the economy" got as far as I have, I'll give you a hint....it's a very simple formula.

Hedgehog - Failing to pay up in a civil case will result in assets from the person being taken equivalent to the amount. I suppose Greg Combet could violently resist his assets being taken, but then he would be breaking common law and could go to jail anyway.

And no I am not Ian Hanke, but doing a quick Google search of him, I must say I feel flattered. Labornet's immature attacks on Ian Hanke means he must be really hated by union heavies (which I assume you are because no-one at my work automatically knows who the man is, but apparently the strong unions hate his guts.

And Shonga, although you don't ever answer my questions, I will do you the common courtesy of answering yours - businesses are entitled to make a profit. They do have considerable costs which affect the bottom line such as superannuation, insurance because of workcover and compliance with a raft of red tape, both federal and state.

What's more, the profits they make don't get shoved under the bed or put in a big scrooge mcduck vault to swim in - it is spent at other businesses, which employ people, who then spend etc etc.

You seem to have this idea that the economy cannot grow but can only redistribute money from employers to employees and vice versa.
Maybe you should brush up on some economics.

t.u.s

TUS, that Ideology of Social Justice stems from just before the Great depression, un even handed paradox of Socialism , Real Fascism of part or full Government and Bureaucrat control, Frightened yet? History will tell us that even Hitler’s Ideas of Governance came from Franklin D Roosevelt. In it self created the environment. These lessons are lost on some, as you rightly put it. Economics is out of their range for their selfish reasons; this premise is based on a psych epistemology to take what belongs to an Individual and what is intellectual property rights .This is across the board: a product of envy instead of creating ability. Making professional Liars and thieves, (Looters) is why we may well be headed for a Greater Depression.
Irony: Read a book of Ayn Rand’s. “The Atlas Shrugged” alarm bells: bad alarm bells ringing. The similarities of near eighty years of Socialist psycho-epistemology of that time and what passes now is frighteningly similar. The above mentioned book should be a year 10 compulsory study. I commend every Australian to read and absorb its content.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451191145/103-8142414-8250261
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451163087/103-8142414-8250261

All- please don't encourage t.u.s=t.b.t He say's I haven't answered his questions. Yet he hasn't answered mine e.g. Why is it that in 1970 C.E.O.'s were paid 4 times the ordinary worker's wage, yet today they are paid more than 40 times the ordinary worker's wage. I asked this question many posts ago, but still have not had an answer from our great economist, and many other questions I have asked of him still go unanswered...I know all about business, and really have nothing against "good employer's" at all but t.u.s.=t.b.t strikes me as a "bad egg" which is why I continue to argue with him. If he could only answer this one question, with his vast knowledge of all things related to the economy, I would have thought it would have been an easy question for him. He asumes everyone is ignorant on economics, except of course himself. This is the arogance I object to. Perhaps you will have more luck getting an answer out of him than I have had, good luck mate, you will need it, the danger is he really believes his own jurnolistic bulldust....

Shonga,

TUS has long appreciated wages & conditions earned by others - being the countless workers (unionists) that took part in strikes and disputes to gain the conditions TUS enjoys. TUS does not feel any obligation to repay in any way those benefits, in fact TUS seeks to undermine those benefits being enjoyed by others (by undercutting award conditions).

TUS therefore is a SCAB! Do not waste any more of your time and energy attempting to convert the ignorant. Those who enjoy the benefits yet spit upon those that earned them, do not deserve to enjoy them any longer. I am working on my proposal, and I appear to have gained some support from persons within the structure of the ACTU. If this works, the majority of employers will avoid harming union members for it would be economic suicide to do so, however non-union worker's will be fair game (particularly TUS etc.).

DO NOT GET MAD, GET EVEN

With the Executive line, I would agree 100 present, it is the new management of self reward for failure, and you see this in politics and within the bureaucracy of governments and within large Corporations.
A big rort if you like: gone unchallenged, some sort of new line of Elites that have no need in the long term to perform, but raid the Bank accounts, and that is obvious of late. This perhaps is directly a result of the Post-modern era of underachievers.
Heavens above, when you hear some of the outrageous packages offered, I can understand why some resent it, I certainly do, but they are the high profile Elites of underachievers , Executive Looters to be exact,, but also there a great many achievers and professionals with real ability in some that go unrewarded, and it is from that we can only draw advancement of a Real business mind, the Looting still goes on, but as the public slowly wake up, then we need to take our business somewhere else. The Looting of the Public money is what you see with Governments and Toll ways Con- Rortiums, always finding new way to steal your hard earn money, and then steal more, same type of unoriginal mind set, Legalized Mafia perhaps? The same extremities have infiltrated the Private sector.
This is the Doctrine of Socialism, a parent of the original Fascism,unlike Communism , this Modified Marxist Bastard child is Part Government control and part private, Government obviously controls. Dangerous waters there.

TUS CRAP. People go to jail for bad debts. However losing your assets for asking for a fair go is alright is it. About says it all about you, doesnt it.

Shonga - I answered your question when it was first asked - CEOs are paid up to $59 million because the board thinks they are worth this much to the company. They think that the person will be worth this much and then some, so they hire them. If you don't like this situation, boycott companies who pay high salaries and withdraw any suparannuation firms which invest your hard earned cash in million dollar CEOs.
Of course, unless everybody decides to take this line, some companies will still pay more and the most talented will look for the best offer
Besides, that is not an industrial relations issue anyway.

Aaron, say what you want about what you see as disloyalty. I appreciate what the unions have done, I just want them to move forward and be modern. I don't think there is a need for a confrontational system any more.
My opinion is that unions should be using some of their advertising money to run workshops to help people negotiate. Or better yet they should run employment services to help people who might find themselves unemployed.

Tim Martyn in the original article mentioned Henry Ford and having a person attached to every pair of hands he employed. Unfortunately, increasing the costs of employing people, especially manufacturing jobs, has meant the Henry Ford's of the world have chosen to employ robotic hands instead, or cheaper hands overseas. What is better, 100 jobs at $15 an hour or no jobs at all.

t.u.s.

To support the campaign to ask the coalition senators from your state to cross the floor tomorrow to vote against the IR legislation look at

http://www.yourrightsatwork.com.au/campaigns/

Aaron, ALL AND HEDGEHOG, THis is the answer to why C.E.O's have increased their earning to 40 times the average worker's pay, it seems to be "because they can" although the boycott seems to me to be an increasingly good idea, I have also suggested a Boss Watch, to dob in employer's who do the wrong thing by their employees, perhaps the two could go hand in hand, what do you think...Perhaps an award could be drawn up for C.E.O.'s which paid them 4 times the avererage of the other workers in their organisation, and watch the average workers wage jump then....

A Boss watch, name and shame approach, is an essential tactic that should be adopted by the ACTU over the next two years. It is clear these draconian laws will not bite openly over the next three years. Many unions have locked there members conditions down for the next couple of years. Howard and his cronies know that this is the slow boiling of a frog in a pot. He hopes to sneak through the next election claiming that the roof is not falling in.However he and the bosses will understand that the (white ant) dishonest legislation has weakened conditions ready to be knocked over.The ACTU needs and is obligated to keep working Australians fully informed right up to 2007.

TUS,

I agree that it is time fo ra new approach. However I do not see how the ACTU and indivdual unions coul justify spending their members money to assist non-union (non-paying) employee's to negotiate. Similarly, thanks to the new laws, the unions no longer have any mandate to negotiate on the behalf on non-union employee's, therefore there is no need for the unions to monitor the wages and conditions afforded non-union workers by employer's.

Moreover, my proposal would work by requiring producers who wished to use (and qualified) the logo / design on their packaging or promotional material to pay for the privelege. They would probably do so, for the simple fact is that it is miniscule in comparison to their advertising budgets. I also envisage that their will be an explosion in the number of union affiliated legal firms in this country, providin cheap / pro bono services (including negotiation) to member's.

SHONGA/HEDGEHOG
I do believe that a journal could be used to effectively out BAD employer's, whilst remaining within the constraints of political free speech. This would have the additional effect of adding a negative consideration to employer's, as they would be likely to lose their accreditation if they employed such person's.

I am nearly finished with the detailed proposal, however I am struggling with the marketing side of it - any assistance gratefully accepted.

I am really interested in the idea of 'boss-watch' - it would be very easy to set-up a blog, but how to keep it free of claims of defamation? Also could be mis-used. However would love to place my previous employer at top of list as warning to prospective employees.

Aaron looking forward to the details of your proposal - unfortunately don't know enough to be of much assistance.

There is nothing family friendly about IR changes and it presupposes an equal playing field which doesn't exist. Also, while I am skilled and articulate I do lack confidence and desperately need a job which pays enough for (modest) mortgage - not an equal playing field where employee needs job more than employer needs employee (administrative workers are a dime a dozen).

Also changes are based on buoyant economy, what happens when economy slows?

By the time the effects of IR changes are fully realised Howard will have long since retired. He full well knows that the sky won't fall in immediately. Loss of living standards will be slow but inevitable.

Aaron/Scout: Aaron re your proposals mate I sent mine via my Union Secretary, who then passed them on to the A.C.T.U. I suggest you do likewise mate, they will have the expertise to do the marketing, good luck. Scout, the way to avoid defamation is to post the good companies, leaving out the bad, that way if you want to buy an appliance, and the business you were thinking of purchasing from is not on the list, you simply change to one that is, no defamation. Hopefully this could be incorporated into Aarons ideas, of having the A.C.T.U. approval sticker, we can apply pressure to the largest of employeers if we apply ourselves, and stick together. It seems that the almost defenceless workers will be the first to feel the wrath of the IR laws, e.g. retail and hospitality we have to suppot them, because if they are defeated, we will be next.

Aaron, as I said on another thread, I think the idea of unions giving a tick of approval to businesses has some merit, although it would easily be open to abuse.

Would the ACTU with hold the 'logo' from a business which didn't have a union but otherwise treated its employees fair and well.

There is also a problem with public service employees. Unionised labour is much more prevalent in the public service than in the private sector. Would the ACTU approve of State or Federal Governments or individual departments such as police or health.
There is also conflict of interest when you have a Labor Party government in power (as is the case in every state at the moment.)

Here you would have the Government seeking an official endorsement from a lobby group which was not only a major political donor but also a major source of candidates and members. Certainly there is the potential for corruption. Would all the publc servants be told to vote for the Libs if the Labor government didn't treat them well.

At least though the idea is a positive one (kinda like Australia made logo) not the name and shame method endorsed by others (which I suppose would be like denouncing foreign goods rather than promoting Aussie goods).

It is definitely better than backdoor thuggery and bullying, which has happened in the past.

And (I suppose ironically given some of the opposition to "the market forces" I have promoted for) it would be a capitalist response to the IR changes. Employers would be rewarded in the marketplace if people thought they were doing good and they would be punished if they were doing bad.

t.u.s

Aaron, Congratulations mate you even have approval from t.u.s=t.b.t for your plan, now that is what I call progress. Of course the bully boy tactics only come from the unions, never employers. Of course the Government employees who are uniounised include police, teachers, lawyers ect, who seem to enjoy having their own associations to represent them, unlike many in the private sector, who are either too afraid to belong to a union, or are too naive to see the benefits the public sector see. I find it very interesting that t.u.s=t.b.t has given you his approval, considering his reply to my post previous, when I suggested a boycott, perhaps he is like all bully's when outnumbered, suddenly there comes a backdown. I think and have thought from the beginning that your plan was a viable one mate, and I also notice now that two Tory MP's have opened a site to dobb in a boss, remarkable, they vote for the legislation to empower employer's at the detriment of employee's then set up a site to dobb your boss in for not treating you correctly, a bit like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. You wouldn't use their site anyway, you could not be confident of where the information might end up. Please keep going with your plan mate, it is a beauty, after all unionists are capitalists also, all we have to sell is our labour, which we want {like business} the most we can get for it.

Shonga,

I have almost finished a semi-detailed outline of the proposal however my PC is playing up (it drops out regularly) makin it difficult for me to post it on my blog.

I am actually contacting the marketing section of some of Australia's largest corporate citizens to seek in principle approval to support the proposed campaign. I also intend to supply all ALP Senators & MP's with a copy (via my local senators and members).

I will also utilise every contact I have in the ACTU / Unions / Trades Halls to ensure that this proposal is considered as a viable response to the current IR changes.

IT IS ALL IN GOOD FUN

Oooooo Some nasty person, (Looter) has tried to hack in on my financial account at Amazon, hope they realize that IP addresses exist, and we are tracking, expect a knock on the door soon from the fraud squad .

Aaron/All; Aaron, I have viewed your blog, and in my humble opinion, it is excellent mate. All, what a dirty b@#$ard, hope you catch him

Memo to Shonga - We live in Australia.

The Federal Government is a Liberal-National Coalition. Nary a Tory in sight.

In fact, your despised Tories are elected officials in a country called England, half a world away. In England the Labour Party knows how to spell Labor, they drink their beer at room temperature and alas they have hold of the Ashes (until next summer anyway).

But, those evil Tories are part of the class struggle, so march on dear soldier.

As for bullying unions versus bosses, the new IR levels the field. Whereas a disgruntled employee has the power to move on to another job, often bosses have found it hard to move on from a disgruntled union. Just ask Richard Colebatch.

And yes, Aaron's idea has merit, but as a carrot rather than a stick. It could easily be abused to cause harm to non-unionised businesses who otherwise treat their workers well.

t.u.s